Instant Action & PvE Feedback

Replies

@ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please

The old engines were by far easier and quicker to work on. This is why games like Titanfall can have good AI... it is an old engine with a new coat of paint.

Exactly what I am saying for Battlefront 2!

It is still the Frostbite Engine but with a fresher coat of paint.

If they cant do stuff with it now that you could do before than that means the game engine is getting worse instead of better.

So the real question is if Frostbite is better now or worse?

Because if it really is better than Better AI for Skirmish is also possible!

Otherwise the new coat of paint ended up a worse color than the old paint.

as long as Motive is working on the skirmish AI then I'm buying the game, maybe even pre-ordering it. It should be loads better because otherwise they wouldn't release it. you cant have a campaign without good AI either, especially since those AI will be the "random fighting" AI and not the objective based one. That was the real problem with the last game's AI, so it would be simple to copy the fighting capabilities of the campaign AI to skirmish, with some abilities and stuff of course because there are actual classes.

@ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please

The old engines were by far easier and quicker to work on. This is why games like Titanfall can have good AI... it is an old engine with a new coat of paint.

Exactly what I am saying for Battlefront 2!

It is still the Frostbite Engine but with a fresher coat of paint.

If they cant do stuff with it now that you could do before than that means the game engine is getting worse instead of better.

So the real question is if Frostbite is better now or worse?

Because if it really is better than Better AI for Skirmish is also possible!

Nope, this isn't the same thing. Source Engine is much more simplistic and more user friendly since it has been out for many years. Frostbite is still being developed, and isn't the nice little package that Source is. This is why all of these studios have people working on the engine... to one day get it to a point where it has the same simplicity of Source.

It is nowhere near that since it is being used by so many studios for so many things. So many different Frostbite iterations are in existence right now because DICE uses it for shooters, Bioware uses it for open world stuff, Ghost uses it for Need for Speed, Tiburon uses it for Madden, etc... One day it may be easy... right now is not that day, nor do I expect it to be that easy for the next 2+ years

@ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please

The old engines were by far easier and quicker to work on. This is why games like Titanfall can have good AI... it is an old engine with a new coat of paint.

Exactly what I am saying for Battlefront 2!

It is still the Frostbite Engine but with a fresher coat of paint.

If they cant do stuff with it now that you could do before than that means the game engine is getting worse instead of better.

So the real question is if Frostbite is better now or worse?

Because if it really is better than Better AI for Skirmish is also possible!

Nope, this isn't the same thing. Source Engine is much more simplistic and more user friendly since it has been out for many years. Frostbite is still being developed, and isn't the nice little package that Source is. This is why all of these studios have people working on the engine... to one day get it to a point where it has the same simplicity of Source.

It is nowhere near that since it is being used by so many studios for so many things. So many different Frostbite iterations are in existence right now because DICE uses it for shooters, Bioware uses it for open world stuff, Ghost uses it for Need for Speed, Tiburon uses it for Madden, etc... One day it may be easy... right now is not that day, nor do I expect it to be that easy for the next 2+ years

I think you seriously underestimate what developers are capable of in regards to programming AI. I wouldn't expect it to be too difficult for them to program an AI to perform a task like, say... picking up an ION Disruptor and then shooting it at the MTT in Assault on Theed. I doubt it would be significantly more difficult from telling the AI to shut off an uplink or capture a drop pod as they did in the previous game.

@ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please

The old engines were by far easier and quicker to work on. This is why games like Titanfall can have good AI... it is an old engine with a new coat of paint.

Exactly what I am saying for Battlefront 2!

It is still the Frostbite Engine but with a fresher coat of paint.

If they cant do stuff with it now that you could do before than that means the game engine is getting worse instead of better.

So the real question is if Frostbite is better now or worse?

Because if it really is better than Better AI for Skirmish is also possible!

Nope, this isn't the same thing. Source Engine is much more simplistic and more user friendly since it has been out for many years. Frostbite is still being developed, and isn't the nice little package that Source is. This is why all of these studios have people working on the engine... to one day get it to a point where it has the same simplicity of Source.

It is nowhere near that since it is being used by so many studios for so many things. So many different Frostbite iterations are in existence right now because DICE uses it for shooters, Bioware uses it for open world stuff, Ghost uses it for Need for Speed, Tiburon uses it for Madden, etc... One day it may be easy... right now is not that day, nor do I expect it to be that easy for the next 2+ years

I think you seriously underestimate what developers are capable of in regards to programming AI. I wouldn't expect it to be too difficult for them to program an AI to perform a task like, say... picking up an ION Disruptor and then shooting it at the MTT in Assault on Theed. I doubt it would be significantly more difficult from telling the AI to shut off an uplink or capture a drop pod as they did in the previous game.

There he goes again. The guy who does not speak to the devs regularly telling the guy who DOES speak to the devs regularly what they can and can't do.

Hilarious.

Why can't you just accept that you don't know everything, and if the guy who has an in with the actual developers tells you it's harder than you say, then it's harder than you say.

Considering that a few interns got ai to play the objective better than most of my mp team mates in WA, I think if the effort were put in the frostbite engine can handle decent to very good ai.

I don't know why people belive, that they cant made a good IA that drives vehicles and go for objectives. There is a game called section 8 predjudice where bots made all of this and is a 2009 or 2010 game

I don't know why people belive, that they cant made a good IA that drives vehicles and go for objectives. There is a game called section 8 predjudice where bots made all of this and is a 2009 or 2010 game

I've been glancing over the back and forth briefly on the AI Argument over the last few pages and the reason given for why the AI can't perform like people here on the forum would like is due to limitations of the Frostbite Engine that the EA Battlefront Games use.

If both EA Battlefront 1 and EA Battlefront 2 were limited in their capabilities and potential, due to the Frostbite Engine being used, then why does EA/DICE have to keep using the Frostbite Engine?

I appreciate the dedication from all involved into making EA Battlefront 1 and EA Battlefront 2 look absolutely gorgeous and into using soundbites and other audio from the Star Wars Movies to make the world sound so good and authentic, but, is it really necessary for these games to look and sound so wonderfully?

That seemed to be a problem with EA's Battlefront 1, as developers were trying so hard to make the game look and sound so very good that it hurt the amount of content of what the game had to offer, for both the Multiplayer and the Singleplayer.

We surely hope that this history doesn't repeat itself with EA's Battlefront 2 and players, once again, are faced with a lack of content, as a result of the devs trying to use their skills and photogrammetry to make the game feel authentic to the visuals and audio of the Star Wars Universe.

The excuse of " its an upgrade, its harder to do" is like saying "Sure, I can edit those files on a windows 8....windows 8.1? Oh Im lost, its too hard to follow now that its been upgraded"

Its not a new engine, its upgraded but its the same damned engine.

There is a reason after,idk,Unreal Engines have been out for years, upgraded,played around with etc, that developers say "oh yeah,we can do things we couldnt do before now that the engine has been out for years and we have a better understanding of it"not saying " oh Unreal has been out for awhile, so its like we have to learn it all over again".

What he (Poolshark) is saying goes against what guys at Netherrealm, Sega/Creative Assembly or Ubisoft say about Engines they used, one of those companies said something similar that I said in quotes up there too btw ....and please poolshark dont act like Frostbite is a totally different beast, because its a game engine like anything else, and they programmed AI to follow Objectives 2 times in 2015 in the Vanilla and in 2016 with the Skirmish DLC...with the very same engine. That totally defeats your side of the "story". If the developers are telling you that, they are lying. Again, they already programmed AI to follow an objective...in off hours with 3 people!
Stop playing the sycophant and defending laziness

OK I am going to come clean on why I really want a good Skirmish mode and @ThePoolshark and @Blazur should take note.

When it comes to variety in matches, gameplay, and stuff like that I actully do prefer multiplayer matches. People are all different while the AI in many games try to do the same things however there are some games that do manage to make AI similar to real players.

Having said that the reason I want a great Skirmish mode is not because I like playing with the AI more than other people.

It is because I want to play on ALL MAPS AND MODES when the multiplayer is becomes unplayable because of either the servers being shut off or simple lack of other players. EA Battlefront 2015 is already facing this problem in many of the modes and especially DLC maps and modes and that is a huge problem for those like me who may want to go back to some of those maps and modes later on!

That is why we want a good Skirmish mode with good AI. We want to be able to go back and play ALL of the MAPS AND MODES long after everyone else has moved on to other games!

Plenty. It distracts from what really matters, and what most people are buying the game for. Deny it all you want but you're among the minority. Very few people likely care about this feature. If it were more important the game wouldn't have sold 14million copies.

It doesn't matter that they have 3 studios working on the budget. It doesn't change the fact that development of the game is still at the mercy of time and budget. When game-breaking bugs can last for 3 months, no amount of effort should be spent on something as lame as skirmish when 95% of the community is being held back by that. When hackers can go months without being caught, they should prioritize that above all else. When new season content is being proposed developers should concentrate on that. Most people are buying this game for the MP experience. Fact.

Skirmish should be their lowest priority. Save it for AFTER the game has run its course as a favor to the fans who wish to extend their game experience later on when the community dries up. It's not what the core experience for THIS game is all about (read: not a game well over a decade ago).

OK I am going to come clean on why I really want a good Skirmish mode and @ThePoolshark and @Blazur should take note.

When it comes to variety in matches, gameplay, and stuff like that I actully do prefer multiplayer matches. People are all different while the AI in many games try to do the same things however there are some games that do manage to make AI similar to real players.

Having said that the reason I want a great Skirmish mode is not because I like playing with the AI more than other people.

It is because I want to play on ALL MAPS AND MODES when the multiplayer is becomes unplayable because of either the servers being shut off or simple lack of other players. EA Battlefront 2015 is already facing this problem in many of the modes and especially DLC maps and modes and that is a huge problem for those like me who may want to go back to some of those maps and modes later on!

That is why we want a good Skirmish mode with good AI. We want to be able to go back and play ALL of the MAPS AND MODES long after everyone else has moved on to other games!

Is there seriously any downsides to that?

That's why we should have all multiplayer planets and makes availible in skirmish in some way, also since there was some planets in the last battlefront that weren't put into skirmish we should get them in the next game with some touch ups

Plenty. It distracts from what really matters, and what most people are buying the game for. Deny it all you want but you're among the minority. Very few people likely care about this feature. If it were more important the game wouldn't have sold 14million copies.

It doesn't matter that they have 3 studios working on the budget. It doesn't change the fact that development of the game is still at the mercy of time and budget. When game-breaking bugs can last for 3 months, no amount of effort should be spent on something as lame as skirmish when 95% of the community is being held back by that. When hackers can go months without being caught, they should prioritize that above all else. When new season content is being proposed developers should concentrate on that. Most people are buying this game for the MP experience. Fact.

Skirmish should be their lowest priority. Save it for AFTER the game has run its course as a favor to the fans who wish to extend their game experience later on when the community dries up. It's not what the core experience for THIS game is all about (read: not a game well over a decade ago).

Plenty. It distracts from what really matters, and what most people are buying the game for. Deny it all you want but you're among the minority. Very few people likely care about this feature. If it were more important the game wouldn't have sold 14million copies.

It doesn't matter that they have 3 studios working on the budget. It doesn't change the fact that development of the game is still at the mercy of time and budget. When game-breaking bugs can last for 3 months, no amount of effort should be spent on something as lame as skirmish when 95% of the community is being held back by that. When hackers can go months without being caught, they should prioritize that above all else. When new season content is being proposed developers should concentrate on that. Most people are buying this game for the MP experience. Fact.

Skirmish should be their lowest priority. Save it for AFTER the game has run its course as a favor to the fans who wish to extend their game experience later on when the community dries up. It's not what the core experience for THIS game is all about (read: not a game well over a decade ago).

Are you done?

Most people are buying this game because it is Star Wars.

That's why the main characters of Star Wars should be in the game first, to attract Star Wars fans, it isn't just about a shooter game, it's also about the heroes

Plenty. It distracts from what really matters, and what most people are buying the game for. Deny it all you want but you're among the minority. Very few people likely care about this feature. If it were more important the game wouldn't have sold 14million copies.

It doesn't matter that they have 3 studios working on the budget. It doesn't change the fact that development of the game is still at the mercy of time and budget. When game-breaking bugs can last for 3 months, no amount of effort should be spent on something as lame as skirmish when 95% of the community is being held back by that. When hackers can go months without being caught, they should prioritize that above all else. When new season content is being proposed developers should concentrate on that. Most people are buying this game for the MP experience. Fact.

Skirmish should be their lowest priority. Save it for AFTER the game has run its course as a favor to the fans who wish to extend their game experience later on when the community dries up. It's not what the core experience for THIS game is all about (read: not a game well over a decade ago).

Are you done?

14 million "shipped" not sold big difference. Shipped= shipped to locations but not neccessarily baught. Could have sold the first couple million easily and overestimated the demand and shipped more than ended up selling. Thats probly the case.
No statement from EA themselves state they sold 14 million. Only shipped

Also many want Offline, if they truely "sold 14 million" on Stripped down MP alone, there would be no need tto do much but Improve the MP and Maybe add more eras. Thats obviously not the case
A "minority" doesnt change a game like that to include 2 big modes.ala Campaign and Additional offline. And you talk about us being uninformed?? Lol good job, says the kettle to the pot.

Well it is clear you actually didn't read my whole post because I did say that I actually liked the Multiplayer and the reason I like Skirmish is the ability to come back to all of the great maps and modes when no one else is playing them.

If I am in the minority on that than that means you are saying the Majority of players hate the multiplayer and never want to play it again!

Well it is clear you actually didn't read my whole post because I did say that I actually liked the Multiplayer and the reason I like Skirmish is the ability to come back to all of the great maps and modes when no one else is playing them.

If I am in the minority on that than that means you are saying the Majority of players hate the multiplayer and never want to play it again!

I want to add I believe the devs will do a good job of PVE and PVP. I think the Skirmish mode will be good. There is a demand for it as well. I hope there are improvements across the board. Multiplayer and the campaign are shaping up nicely, and a good co op/singleplayer mode fills out a triple A game nicely.

I thought Skirmsh was great last time minus the lack of dlc maps which was a HUGE chunk of the game. Jabba's Palace, ESB, the Death Star, and Rogue One. Even if we would have got Blast that would have done a lot to make Skirmish feel like a true Instant Action, but there were so many maps left out.

I thought Skirmsh was great last time minus the lack of dlc maps which was a HUGE chunk of the game. Jabba's Palace, ESB, the Death Star, and Rogue One. Even if we would have got Blast that would have done a lot to make Skirmish feel like a true Instant Action, but there were so many maps left out.

Well, Dennis did say that EA/DICE wasn't just going to throw away all the work that they did on EA's Battlefront 1, when moving on to EA's Battlefront 2.

I thought Skirmsh was great last time minus the lack of dlc maps which was a HUGE chunk of the game. Jabba's Palace, ESB, the Death Star, and Rogue One. Even if we would have got Blast that would have done a lot to make Skirmish feel like a true Instant Action, but there were so many maps left out.

Well, Dennis did say that EA/DICE wasn't just going to throw away all the work that they did on EA's Battlefront 1, when moving on to EA's Battlefront 2.

Might explain why the DLC Maps of Battlefront 1 were never brought to the Skirmish of Battlefront 1.

EA/DICE was done with working on the first game and decided to move on and put their effort into making the second game, so, maybe, perhaps that request can happen.

Wouldn't necessarily count on that to happen, but, can't confirm that it won't happen at this point.

Guess we'll find out soon.

I definitely would like to see Jabba's Palace, Bespin, and the Death Star maps in Skirmish. Especially Battle Station mode... even more so if they can implement the seamless capital ship boarding we're getting in the campaign.

I thought Skirmsh was great last time minus the lack of dlc maps which was a HUGE chunk of the game. Jabba's Palace, ESB, the Death Star, and Rogue One. Even if we would have got Blast that would have done a lot to make Skirmish feel like a true Instant Action, but there were so many maps left out.

Well, Dennis did say that EA/DICE wasn't just going to throw away all the work that they did on EA's Battlefront 1, when moving on to EA's Battlefront 2.

Might explain why the DLC Maps of Battlefront 1 were never brought to the Skirmish of Battlefront 1.

EA/DICE was done with working on the first game and decided to move on and put their effort into making the second game, so, maybe, perhaps that request can happen.

Wouldn't necessarily count on that to happen, but, can't confirm that it won't happen at this point.

Guess we'll find out soon.

I definitely would like to see Jabba's Palace, Bespin, and the Death Star maps in Skirmish. Especially Battle Station mode... even more so if they can implement the seamless capital ship boarding we're getting in the campaign.

That very well has a possibility of happening.

I'm not sure if EA/DICE would throw those EA Battlefront 1 DLC Maps back into the Multiplayer of EA's Battlefront 2, as fans/players would probably rather have all New Maps instead.

And, like I said, Dennis did say that he wanted people to try out the DLC Content that may not have been available to them for EA's Battlefront 1 and that he did not want to throw away all the hard work that the team did.

So, therefore, perhaps the EA Battlefront 1 Maps could very well make it into the Skirmish of EA's Battlefront 2.

Plenty. It distracts from what really matters, and what most people are buying the game for. Deny it all you want but you're among the minority. Very few people likely care about this feature. If it were more important the game wouldn't have sold 14million copies.

It doesn't matter that they have 3 studios working on the budget. It doesn't change the fact that development of the game is still at the mercy of time and budget. When game-breaking bugs can last for 3 months, no amount of effort should be spent on something as lame as skirmish when 95% of the community is being held back by that. When hackers can go months without being caught, they should prioritize that above all else. When new season content is being proposed developers should concentrate on that. Most people are buying this game for the MP experience. Fact.

Skirmish should be their lowest priority. Save it for AFTER the game has run its course as a favor to the fans who wish to extend their game experience later on when the community dries up. It's not what the core experience for THIS game is all about (read: not a game well over a decade ago).

Are you done?

Have you data to support why people buy the game? Or you only say what you belive...

And if you belive is only for muliplayer i don't know i belive" for MP people buy COD or Battlefield and even COD have all modes against bots

Have you data to support why people buy the game? Or you only say what you belive...

And if you belive is only for muliplayer i don't know i belive" for MP people buy COD or Battlefield and even COD have all modes against bots

Yes. The game sold 14 million copies with hardly any single player content and no instant action. That's some pretty damning evidence there's a thriving MP community willing to buy this game for what it truly is.

Have you data to support why people buy the game? Or you only say what you belive...

And if you belive is only for muliplayer i don't know i belive" for MP people buy COD or Battlefield and even COD have all modes against bots

Yes. The game sold 14 million copies with hardly any single player content and no instant action. That's some pretty damning evidence there's a thriving MP community willing to buy this game for what it truly is.

Yeah, and most of those people abandoned the game, because it was shallow as Hell. Just look at Metacritic to see what the fans really thought of it. EA and DICE screwed the pooch the first time around, big time.

Yeah, and most of those people abandoned the game, because it was shallow as ****. Just look at Metacritic to see what the fans really thought of it. EA and DICE screwed the pooch the first time around, big time.

Metacritic is meaningless and can be abused. And what does this even have to do with the topic at hand?
Regardless of what you believe people thought of the game, you can bet most of them were educated enough to know what they were buying into and knew there was no instant action. Those that weren't are among members of soloplayersmatter and can fill a lake with their salt.

So you can throw shade all you want, but the truth remains the game sold on its MP principles and that very few people were bothered by the absence of instant action.

@Blazur I don't understand why you are telling us this, this thread is meant for the offline experience, not for the lack of such. no offense, I just don't see the point in posting on this thread if you are not contributing ideas or whatever about the offline skirmish or other offline modes.

I feel BF2 can appeal to far more people than before if it has an extensive offline mode. While most people did buy the last game for multiplayer, considering that was 90% of the game, if we had all of the online content offline then many more copies will be sold to new people who aren't into multiplayer. considering that three studios are working on the game, its not going to take away from the multiplayer experience, actually the multiplayer is looking tons better than before, and we already know we are getting at least three times more content.

If the game sold 14 million copies or however much it was, then those gamers wanted an online experience. if the next game sells 20 million, then we know that a good portion of players wanted an offline experience too. More content and a wider range of appeal makes money, and like I said we are getting a separate studio for offline. DICE will still be doing what they know best, making a good online experience without wasting their time on offline, because we know they cant do the AI programming and everything very well. Theres no worry that more offline content will take away from the mp experience, DICE is still working hard on that with the help of Criterion on the starfighters and vehicles and stuff.

I just think that in the end, the addition of more and better offline content will result in more money for EA, and considering the demand for skirmish in the last game, id say that even the people that bought the game for its multiplayer wanted an offline experience too, especially when the internet wasn't available or wasn't working. Think about it, at launch, the online experience was far from stable, even with a good internet connection, and many people hated the arcady feel of multiplayer in that game. The multiplayer in the next game looks to be far from arcady luckily, and more competitive than before, which means that the casual player base that EA or DICE was trying to appeal too to get more money might want an offline experience that isn't so demanding and competitive. BF2 is meant to appeal to everyone, even the minority if one so exists, while also appealing to new people and bringing in more money. They are listening to feedback from all people about every aspect of the game, and they started on BF2 very early while also having plenty of devolopers and three whole studios to work on it. the thought that the addition of more content in offline or otherwise will take away from the multiplayer experience is absurd in my opinion because DICE will be working on multiplayer only with no distractions, and this time around even multiplayer is going be better.

again we need this thread to show our wishes and share our thoughts on the offline experience if DICE and EA are listening to our feedback, and we don't need our thoughts frowned upon. please, if you don't have any interest in the offline experience then don't post on this thread and go to a different discussion about the online if that is what you like and are interested in. there is no need to frown upon and show your difference in opinion because we know its there and all people have their own opinions we know. I just don't want to waste time arguing when more creative and friendly things can be done here. I am trying to be nice I don't want to ruin this thread or stir any more arguments or anger any people, but please if you have a different opinion about what this game needs then post on a thread with others of a similar opinion.

Yeah, and most of those people abandoned the game, because it was shallow as ****. Just look at Metacritic to see what the fans really thought of it. EA and DICE screwed the pooch the first time around, big time.

Metacritic is meaningless and can be abused. And what does this even have to do with the topic at hand?
Regardless of what you believe people thought of the game, you can bet most of them were educated enough to know what they were buying into and knew there was no instant action. Those that weren't are among members of soloplayersmatter and can fill a lake with their salt.

So you can throw shade all you want, but the truth remains the game sold on its MP principles and that very few people were bothered by the absence of instant action.

I'm simply pointing out the game is viewed by most as a disappointment, no matter how much you defend the shallow product we got. Sales means squat when it comes to actual quality. The game was going to sell no matter what based upon the Star Wars IP and the public's excitement about the brand, especially with a new Star Wars movie right around the corner. If anything, pointing out the sales figures just further shows how much the game disappointed.

Additionally, even most of the professional reviews for the game expressed disappointment at the lackluster single player options in the game. Not everyone was looking for Instant Action, but had it been in the game, it would have had a much better overall reception, both from critics and fans.

The last Battlefront simply cashed in on the Battlefront brand. I actually enjoy online multiplayer if its well done, but in a Battlefront game I expect more. Many of my best memories of the old Battlefront games were playing them in the same room with my friends. I'm not a member of SoloPlayersMatter, but I'm not going to sit down and not say anything just because it's a new publisher handling the game. I'm not content to let EA and DICE off the hook the way you do.

If EA wants to create an online only Star Wars shooter and carry forward almost nothing from the old Battlefront games, that's fine, but don't call it Battlefront. They knew they were cashing in on the Battlefront franchise's nostalgia by going with that name, and it came back to bite them in the *****. That's true no matter how much apologists like you try and make excuses about it.

@Admiral_Petty I do agree that the old Battlefront fans want something worthy of that title, so a good offline experience with instant action and galactic conquest and stuff with multiplayer included is what lives up to the name. if EA and DICE want to make a multiplayer only shooter, then it isn't battlefront by any means, even if it is really good, it just isn't battlefront.

Have you data to support why people buy the game? Or you only say what you belive...

And if you belive is only for muliplayer i don't know i belive" for MP people buy COD or Battlefield and even COD have all modes against bots

Yes. The game sold 14 million copies with hardly any single player content and no instant action. That's some pretty damning evidence there's a thriving MP community willing to buy this game for what it truly is.

Time and time again you've mentioned the game sold 14 million copies... how about you tell us how many people returned their copies, or how many out of those 14 million are actually playing the game?

Have you data to support why people buy the game? Or you only say what you belive...

And if you belive is only for muliplayer i don't know i belive" for MP people buy COD or Battlefield and even COD have all modes against bots

Yes. The game sold 14 million copies with hardly any single player content and no instant action. That's some pretty damning evidence there's a thriving MP community willing to buy this game for what it truly is.

Time and time again you've mentioned the game sold 14 million copies... how about you tell us how many people returned their copies, or how many out of those 14 million are actually playing the game?

Time and time again you've mentioned the game sold 14 million copies... how about you tell us how many people returned their copies, or how many out of those 14 million are actually playing the game?

What a silly thing to say. Of course I don't have that data, just the same as you. But what we do have is for every 1 misguided person claiming "OMG INSTANT ACTION IS THE BACKBONE OF THIS GAME!!1!", another million players willingly bought it knowing full well there was no single player component (that doesn't count the goofy SPM crew who bought it without doing their research, a thousand LOLs).

So you can blabber on all you want with pointless non sequiturs, but the truth remains you're among the minority and DICE has bigger priorities.

And you can blabber on all you want about how you "think" they are wasting resources on Skirmish when Skirmish and Multiplayer are effectively one and the same.

If they are wasting resources on Skirmish than that means they are wasting resources on Multiplayer as well since they will more than likely be using the same maps even if the modes are a little different.

Also I will LOL my butt off if Fantasy Battles end up being a part of Skirmish and we end up getting Conquest while multiplayer doesn't.

Time and time again you've mentioned the game sold 14 million copies... how about you tell us how many people returned their copies, or how many out of those 14 million are actually playing the game?

What a silly thing to say. Of course I don't have that data, just the same as you. But what we do have is for every 1 misguided person claiming "OMG INSTANT ACTION IS THE BACKBONE OF THIS GAME!!1!", another million players willingly bought it knowing full well there was no single player component (that doesn't count the goofy SPM crew who bought it without doing their research, a thousand LOLs).

So you can blabber on all you want with pointless non sequiturs, but the truth remains you're among the minority and DICE has bigger priorities.

Have you tried the missions?

You still do not get it duder. Minorities and small groups cannot make EA change the games focus to add in more offline, thats just ridiculous to believe that.

If we were indeed a minority, then They would not have put in an offline component this game...the last game selling millions with MP alone would have equalled a success and prompted them to change little aside from fixing and adding more to MP.

If last game being MP only/mostly was such a huge success, EA would not have put out a public apology and added in 3 more studios to satisfy a minority. It would have stayed the course.

As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2

Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

It costs time and money to develop an AI.

It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

No, it isn't.

I want to play this game with my friends when they come over. I don't want to tell them to go home just so we can play online. Couch co-op with people you know in real life stomps online multiplayer every day of the week. Real life friendship > online multiplayer.

I say this as someone who also likes online multiplayer, it will never have anything on spending time with friends in the real world.

That's why I want Skirmish too.

I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.

I cant wait to play all the new maps and the clone wars era, and yet do it offline with wonderful AI and maybe even hero AI. something like instant action or basically a custom match would be great, and I don't see it as being hard to implement. even if its something as simple as making a match playlist so you don't have to go through twice as many loading screens, which I would welcome anyway. While I prefer the bigger modes, I don't want to be limited by that and I feel that all of the online modes should be included. I highly doubt that we would get something like galactic conquest at launch, but maybe we can convince DICE to include it later on, even if its a lazy attempt. I mean, we DID get DICE to put skirmish in the last one for a free update, which was kind of nice even if the mode and its AI was lacking and ruined it, its still the best offline experience in that game.

DLC support for offline would be welcome too, so phasma can join in on the fun in my offline match with my bro or whoever I'm playing with splitscreen. for some reason the lack of any more implementations on skirmish in the last game gets me hoping that this new one is being made to make up for that in every way possible, by adding new modes and making the AI more capable and smoother. I don't know if it was a design choice or what, but on the last game's skirmish, only 8 AI are actually active for each team at a time, so technically you are not fighting a 20v20 bot match on walker assault, but a 8v8, which is really sad and just makes the game mode that much worse.

I'm sure the most basic of our wishes will be included, like better AI and all game modes playable offline, but I think we'll just have to hope for things like hero AI, 32v32 bot matches, galactic conquest, and so on. I think that hero AI shouldn't be too difficult if Motive is making progress with the AI in general, and the capability to create custom matches and upping the bot count to 64 would only be a simple addition if your hardware can handle it minus balancing issues, but I still have a feeling that galactic conquest will be added post launch after the last jedi movie gets its attention, as well as extra prequel content like Anakin or obi-wan or something, depending on whats available at launch. with how many times ive heard galactic conquest mentioned as a wish for this game, I don't know how DICE or EA can ignore it.

Sure, 14 million people may have bought EA's Battlefront 1 and many of those, for the Multiplayer, but with the Single Player Campaign and more Skirmish being implemented into EA's Battlefront 2, even more people may buy the sequel, due to more gameplay options being available for the audience.

These increased gameplay options help appeal to a larger audience and, with more people playing the sequel, EA's Battlefront 2 could have an increased player base that will keep playing the Multiplayer for a longer timespan than they are currently with EA's Battlefront 1.

Sure, 14 million people may have bought EA's Battlefront 1 and many of those, for the Multiplayer, but with the Single Player Campaign and more Skirmish being implemented into EA's Battlefront 2, even more people may buy the sequel, due to more gameplay options being available for the audience.

These increased gameplay options help appeal to a larger audience and, with more people playing the sequel, EA's Battlefront 2 could have an increased player base that will keep playing the Multiplayer for a longer timespan than they are currently with EA's Battlefront 1.

Support for offline bot multiplayer. Origin is good enough DRM and since I pay for the game I would like to be able to play the new SWBF2 without needing an internet connection, even while connected to the internet I could see myself getting frustrated with other players in online MP. Whether it be players using "meta" tactics or just people talking crap, it would be nice to avoid toxicity whenever possible.

Support for offline bot multiplayer. Origin is good enough DRM and since I pay for the game I would like to be able to play the new SWBF2 without needing an internet connection, even while connected to the internet I could see myself getting frustrated with other players in online MP. Whether it be players using "meta" tactics or just people talking ****, it would be nice to avoid toxicity whenever possible.

Plus it's good for the diehard Star Wars fans who want to continue to enjoy the multiplayer modes and live out their Star Wars battle fantasies when everyone who's in it just for the multiplayer moves on to the next big online shooter after a year or so.

Support for offline bot multiplayer. Origin is good enough DRM and since I pay for the game I would like to be able to play the new SWBF2 without needing an internet connection, even while connected to the internet I could see myself getting frustrated with other players in online MP. Whether it be players using "meta" tactics or just people talking ****, it would be nice to avoid toxicity whenever possible.

Plus it's good for the diehard Star Wars fans who want to continue to enjoy the multiplayer modes and live out their Star Wars battle fantasies when everyone who's in it just for the multiplayer moves on to the next big online shooter after a year or so.

^ This right here is the real reason we need a great Skirmish mode with as many MAPS AND MODES as freakingly possible!

I hope so but probably not. Its sickening, but they really didn't answer if it will be in the game or not. People asked for an offline mode in the first one and we got a half **** version. I can't imagine why they would leave it out of this one.

Well they didn't mention Skirmish at D23 but then again I didn't really expect them to until Gamescom.

The Campaign does look great so far but unfortunately it looks like it will be one of those one and done Campaigns where you go through it once for the story itself.

Not saying that makes it a bad Campaign but we need something with huge battles offline that you can play a hundred times and have each match be different just like online matches.

That is where Skirmish comes in.

As for the AI they can use the AI from the Campaign and improve them from there for the Skirmish modes.

Yeah, they are probably saving Skirmish for last.

The trend seems to be, show the Multiplayer first, then the Campaign, then Skirmish.

Makes sense.

I hope we get to test Skirmish in the Beta. From what I've heard, the Beta will include both the Galactic Assault and Starfighter Assault game modes... so maybe let us try out the Skirmish versions of those game modes as well?